Summary for Shareholders as well as discussion links are missing in the BSIP, can you please add it?

Why did this get split in two workers? Can you please clarify the intent?

Questions that pop up:

What if none get active?

What if both remain inactive?

Does a non active "don't support it" proposal lead to implementation even if the "support it" is not active?

one for support and one for oppose.

I think only when "support" proposal get active and get more voting than the "oppose" proposal then implementation can begin.

although this BSIP is generally for smartcoins, but I think it should be firstly implemented in bitCNY if it pass the voting, only when the result is satisfactory enough then will implement it in bitUSD.

b) What is the time period that people are asked to vote for this before the judgment in a) is being done?

Hard to tell. Perhaps one week? What's your opinion?

Actually we can make it a "permanent" poll, because we can stop/revert the change (to new feed of course) at any time. Then we need to make decision more than once.

Quote

The Shareholder Summary is still missing, Discussion as well. Can you please add it?

Hope people will create pull requests for adding new info.

As it stands right now, the worker proposal has no definition when it will become active, nor is it complete. No one should vote for it. But it seems with 400 million and more votes, it will be done. I strongly disagree that proper formalities were skipped, simply because our whales want to push it through.

I do like your suggestion to have it in a constantly evaluated stage. The BSIP is considered accepted, if the proposal is active AND carries more votes than the against proposal (one vote more is enough).

My suggestion:

a) Finish the proposal by including the discussion and shareholder summary. Also include an exact definition when it is considered active. This should be done by @abit or @bitcrab as the driving force behind itb) Once the BSIP is completed, give at least 1 week grace period so shareholders can vote for or against it (the date when it can earliest become active should be included in the BSIP as well)

My personal opinion:As the proposal stands right now I can not vote for it for formal reason, completely independent of the content. I would be rather forced to vote for "status quo" until the formalities are reinstated. Currently, everyone is swayed by the mere overwhelming power that bitcrab carries, yet I want to see that even he upholds formal procedure. This is crucial for me, as it only empowers the power abuse discussion involving our whales.

As it stands right now, the worker proposal has no definition when it will become active, nor is it complete. No one should vote for it. But it seems with 400 million and more votes, it will be done. I strongly disagree that proper formalities were skipped, simply because our whales want to push it through.

I do like your suggestion to have it in a constantly evaluated stage. The BSIP is considered accepted, if the proposal is active AND carries more votes than the against proposal (one vote more is enough).

My suggestion:

a) Finish the proposal by including the discussion and shareholder summary. Also include an exact definition when it is considered active. This should be done by @abit or @bitcrab as the driving force behind itb) Once the BSIP is completed, give at least 1 week grace period so shareholders can vote for or against it (the date when it can earliest become active should be included in the BSIP as well)

My personal opinion:As the proposal stands right now I can not vote for it for formal reason, completely independent of the content. I would be rather forced to vote for "status quo" until the formalities are reinstated. Currently, everyone is swayed by the mere overwhelming power that bitcrab carries, yet I want to see that even he upholds formal procedure. This is crucial for me, as it only empowers the power abuse discussion involving our whales.

BSIP42 can be regarded as a request to community to permit witnesses to try some new way of feeding.

the core idea in the BSIP42 is "negative feed back feed price" based on the premium/discount of smartcoin, however, no detailed specification are provided, because I think it may be not a good way for abit or me to provide a detailed algorithm and ask the witnesses to adopt, discussion are on going and we keep on suggesting, but I think finally witnesses will develop different algorithms to feed price based on their own understanding. this diversity is also essential for decentralization.

As it stands right now, the worker proposal has no definition when it will become active, nor is it complete. No one should vote for it. But it seems with 400 million and more votes, it will be done. I strongly disagree that proper formalities were skipped, simply because our whales want to push it through.

I do like your suggestion to have it in a constantly evaluated stage. The BSIP is considered accepted, if the proposal is active AND carries more votes than the against proposal (one vote more is enough).

My suggestion:

a) Finish the proposal by including the discussion and shareholder summary. Also include an exact definition when it is considered active. This should be done by @abit or @bitcrab as the driving force behind itb) Once the BSIP is completed, give at least 1 week grace period so shareholders can vote for or against it (the date when it can earliest become active should be included in the BSIP as well)

My personal opinion:As the proposal stands right now I can not vote for it for formal reason, completely independent of the content. I would be rather forced to vote for "status quo" until the formalities are reinstated. Currently, everyone is swayed by the mere overwhelming power that bitcrab carries, yet I want to see that even he upholds formal procedure. This is crucial for me, as it only empowers the power abuse discussion involving our whales.

BSIP42 can be regarded as a request to community to permit witnesses to try some new way of feeding.

the core idea in the BSIP42 is "negative feed back feed price" based on the premium/discount of smartcoin, however, no detailed specification are provided, because I think it may be not a good way for abit or me to provide a detailed algorithm and ask the witnesses to adopt, discussion are on going and we keep on suggesting, but I think finally witnesses will develop different algorithms to feed price based on their own understanding. this diversity is also essential for decentralization.

I will try to add more discussion to the BSIP later.

Appreciate the answer. My point is on the formalities though, not the content of the BSIP.